https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/ en https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/justice-kelli-evans-and-justice-stacy-boulware-eurie-share-perspectives-diversity-courts Justice Kelli Evans and Justice Stacy Boulware Eurie Share Perspectives on Diversity in the CourtsKaren.Datangel Wed, 03/25/2026 - 14:58 Feature Justice Kelli Evans and Justice Stacy Boulware Eurie began their journeys in law as students at UC Davis at similar times, but neither expected their rise to the bench in California's appellate courts, as they first recounted in a conversation with each other during the Black History Month 2026 Closing Ceremony at the Judicial Council on Feb. 25. "As an attorney, I hoped and thought that one day I would eventually like to become a judge, so when I got appointed to the Alameda County court trial bench, I thought I had made it...and I would have happily retired there," said Justice Evans, associate justice of the California Supreme Court. "It was a surprise when I got the call from the governor saying he wanted to elevate me to the California Supreme Court." "While in law school, I dreamt of being a trial judge and when I was appointed in 2007 [to the Sacramento Superior Court], it was literally a dream come true," said Justice Stacy Boulware Eurie, associate justice of the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District. "There's no way I could have anticipated or predicted the current seat I hold." The two justices shared the stage to discuss insights on diversity and inclusion in the courts, access to justice, the roles of judicial officers and court staff, and other topics. Following are highlights from their conversation. On the role of jurists in honoring diversity and inclusion Justice Evans: When I think about inclusion in particular, I think what it means is making sure people feel seen and are seen, feel heard and are heard, have a shot at opportunities, and in the court system, that they feel like it really works for them. Individual judges can do things in their courtrooms that embody these values. From the bench, you can treat all litigants with respect, make sure that you're implementing procedural justice in your courtroom. You can make sure you're using inclusive and accessible language. You can make sure you're explaining your decisions clearly, particularly to the person on the losing side of the decision. You can do things at a leadership level, like advocate for policies that help promote diversity and inclusion. Another thing judges and individuals can do is community outreach and engagement. The more that our communities understand about the justice business, the better it is for our court system and the more likely we are to have diverse and inclusive court systems. If we help everyone to understand they have a stake in it, they have an opportunity to participate in a system that can and should work for everyone. Justice Boulware Eurie: We're all familiar with systemic opportunities and/or barriers for diversity and inclusion, but I also think there's an individual level of opportunity and obligation to see who's at that proverbial table. No entity or structure is perfect but I do think our branch in particular is a mirror to society. The folks that come in through courthouse doors, those folks who support the work of the trial courts, Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Court reflect and should reflect California's citizenry. On the importance of diversity of perspectives and experiences in courts Justice Evans: In the California Supreme Court, we have seven justices who are responsible for making decisions that impact all 40 million of us in California. When you have people at that table who have diverse experiences like people who have been defense attorneys, have represented civil rights litigants, worked with law enforcement their whole lives, been subjects of racial profiling, have family members who have been incarcerated, or have been career prosecutors, that's a very rich discussion and it brings voices to the table that have long been missing. When I talk about diversity, I'm not just talking about race, gender, or sexual orientation - I'm talking about life experience, geography, practice areas, income, all sorts of things. I think it's important in the trial courts if not more important at the appellate court levels. The more people with nuanced perspectives who are part of a conversation, we'll have fewer blind spot errors, and we'll have a better understanding of potential impacts on various communities. Justice Boulware Eurie: When we talk about an impartial court and fair and balanced justice, I think some of that comes from diversity of thought, not just traditional values or experiences. Are there voices that are ensuring a check on the system and as drivers of procedural justice, that it's not just one voice being heard? Is there space for different perspectives and values on how the law is interpreted? I think it looks different in a Court of Appeal or Supreme Court because it's not a single individual judge making all the decisions in a courtroom. In the trial court, those different [perspectives can come from] roles of the prosecutor or public defender, or parents' counsel, minor's counsel, and county counsel. I'm pretty proud of California's courts because I think our branch is embracing the opportunities we're talking about. I thought about language and diversity of perspectives. In juvenile court, when we're dealing with children who are removed from their homes - particularly Black families and communities - we may hear "Hey, that's my cousin." You might later figure out "That's my play cousin" and having a bench officer who understands community relationships and ties that exist beyond blood helps to inform the decision-making in about what's in the best interest of the child. This is just one example of a type of diversity of experience and the opportunity for more informed decision making when you are hearing from and learning about different experiences. On court staff Justice Evans: Our clerks are procedural guardians. Our research attorneys carry an enormously important load as first line filters for the judges and justices for what's coming in and they often go through incredibly voluminous records. There are other court staff like interpreters, reporters, and self-help attorneys. There are court administrators who are doing work that make our courts accessible to the public. Our librarians are facilitating all of our access to material that we need to do our jobs. We've got court security personnel that are protecting our litigants and jurors. Sometimes this work is done under immense time pressure and public scrutiny. We're in a system full of unsung heroes. People know about judges, but people also need to know about the essential roles in our justice system that make it possible to seek and obtain justice. I also know that the more people learn about these roles - young people in particular - the more they're interested in our work. Young people may not be interested in becoming a lawyer or a judge, but would be really interested in one of these other roles. So the more we can share that information, the better. Justice Boulware Eurie: The one role I want to highlight is IT (Information Technology). In the Sacramento Superior Court in the period during COVID, we were spreading jurors out in different courtrooms and utilizing Zoom for them to hear and participate in selection. We had one particular IT member who was running from courtroom to courtroom, standing in the back -- not just to make sure the Zoom and speakers were working, but to make sure we could all be heard clearly. He was trying to stand in the shoes of the user, hearing what was happening in that courtroom or a different courtroom so there was meaningful participation. We know remote access is something the branch is very committed to and is super important. Advice for law students and aspiring lawyers Justice Boulware Eurie: Keep an open mind. I think a lot of people attend law school and go in with this vision of what it is that they want to do and just like undergrad, it's an opportunity for exploration. There will be an opportunity to learn so many substantive areas that you may not have been familiar with. As it relates to this conversation [around diversity and inclusion], I think of the growing importance of environmental law and looking at the demographics of law schools and who participates in those programs -- often I don't see people of color. Look not only where you can participate, but who can you bring along? What other spaces, clinicals, programs, and internships might you and your peers participate in? Is it always the same folks raising their hands? Is there a way you can nudge a colleague or peer to join you in a lunchtime conversation with a professor on a topic that you might otherwise think is dry as sand? Challenge yourself by learning something new in terms of perspective, life background, and the law. Justice Evans: Do what interests you. It might not be what everyone else is doing. Find people that you think are doing things that are interesting and exciting, and reach out to them and learn more. Try lots of different things and stay flexible. There's lot of different ways to be happy in any career but especially as a lawyer. Watch Justice Evans and Justice Boulware Eurie's full conversation. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/memoriam-associate-justice-howard-b-wiener In Memoriam: Associate Justice Howard B. WienerMartin.Novitski Tue, 03/24/2026 - 12:54 News Release Former Associate Justice Howard B. Wiener of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One, passed away on March 20, 2026.  Justice Wiener was born in Providence, Rhode Island on February 1, 1931, attending public schools there. He graduated from Brown University in 1952 with a bachelor of arts degree in philosophy.  Three years later, he obtained his law degree from Harvard University Law School. Following graduation from law school, Justice Wiener and his wife Joan moved to California, where he served as a law clerk to U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Harrison in Los Angeles from 1955 to 1956.  He was admitted to the California Bar in January 1956. During the next 20 years, he practiced law in a small firm in West Covina, handling all types of cases.  He was also active in the legal community, serving as President of the Pomona Valley Bar Association in 1968, on the Board of Trustees of the Los Angeles County Bar Association from 1969 to 1971, and on the State Bar Board of Governors from 1972 to 1975 (Vice President, 1974-1975). On July 25, 1975, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. appointed him to the San Bernardino County Superior Court.  Roughly three years later in May 1978, the Governor selected him to be an Associate Justice on Division One of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District in San Diego.  Over the next 15 years, Justice Wiener became known for clear and thoughtful opinions that adapted and applied legal principles to compassionately serve the interests of people from all walks of life. Despite practicing law in Los Angeles and the Inland Empire, Justice Wiener quickly became active in the San Diego legal community, serving as President of the William B. Enright American Inn of Court from 1991 to 1993 and later as one of its four distinguished emeritus members.  In 2018 he was honored by all five San Diego Inn of Court chapters with the second-ever lifetime achievement award.  A vocal advocate for education at every level and a mentor for many younger lawyers, Justice Wiener was an adjunct professor at the University of San Diego (USD) School of Law (1979-1986) and California Western School of Law (1986-1994), teaching professional responsibility and appellate advocacy respectively.  He also served as Chair of the Board of Visitors at USD Law School.  In 1982 he obtained a Master of Laws Degree in judicial process from the University of Virginia Law School. Justice Wiener retired from the Court on December 31, 1993.  Beginning in 1994, he was actively engaged in private dispute resolution, serving in more than 1,700 cases as a mediator, arbitrator and private judge.  He is co-author with Jon B. Eisenberg and Ellis J. Horvitz of the California Civil Practice Guide, Civil Appeals and Writs, published by The Rutter Group.  In 2007, he was interviewed for the California Appellate Courts Legacy Project.  The interview is available at California Appellate Court Legacy Project | District Courts of Appeal. Justice Wiener was preceded by his wife Joan, and is survived by his son Daniel, daughters Anne and Carrie, five grandchildren, and nine great-grandchildren. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-chief-justice-delivers-2026-state-judiciary-address California Chief Justice Delivers 2026 State of the Judiciary AddressBalassone, Merrill Mon, 03/23/2026 - 15:21 News Release SACRAMENTO—Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero today delivered the 2026 State of the Judiciary address to the California Legislature. A transcript of her remarks is below, and an archived webcast of the address is available on the California Courts YouTube channel. Watch Image "Thank you all so much. Thank you Speaker Rivas, Senate President pro Tempore Limón, distinguished statewide constitutional officers and guests. I am proud to be joined here today by my colleagues from the California Supreme Court (and our Clerk and Executive Officer and court staff); justices, judges, and court executives from local courts around the state; members of our Judicial Council; the California Judges Association; the Bench Bar Coalition; and our justice system partners. I thought about different approaches I could take with my remarks this year. With so much going on in our nation—so much controversy, division, uncertainty, and chaos as well—I’ve decided to offer you something different. If anyone is looking for controversial statements or divisive rhetoric, you will not get it. Instead, I offer you normalcy and a calm and measured report regarding the important work our judicial branch has undertaken over this past year, and some of the major issues facing the judiciary. First, I want to commemorate a significant anniversary in the formation of our country. In 1776, our founders boldly declared their independence from Britain and its King, and stated that we are endowed with unalienable rights of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” With force and clarity, they set forth their list of grievances against “the establishment of an absolute Tyranny”—included among their concerns was a statement that the King had “obstructed the Administration of Justice” and “made Judges dependent on his Will alone.” They later offered a different path—establishing our constitutional republic of three separate and coequal branches of government. We must all safeguard this structure and the fundamental principles which form the basis of our government and the promise of this country. This year, the judicial branch plans to celebrate the unique role we play, and the privilege we have, to uphold the rule of law for all who appear before us—without fear or favor, with courage and steadfast commitment to our oath that we have taken to uphold our constitutions. Now we look forward to celebrating our respective roles alongside all of you. Our jobs are made more challenging, however, by the rise in threats against the judiciary—something I’m not sure our founding fathers would have precisely envisioned. The issue of judicial security is prominent in the minds of many judicial officers, and recent events have unfortunately demonstrated that service on the bench can pose significant safety risks. The Judicial Council of California has made judicial security a legislative priority. We need sufficient resources in order to protect “personnel, the public and court systems from physical, online, and cyber threats.” The council also will continue to advocate for legislation designed to protect the privacy of judges—an issue that is fundamentally intertwined with judicial security. A marked increase in negative rhetoric surrounding judges, including from elected officials, has contributed to these concerns. We welcome public scrutiny, transparency, and accountability regarding the legal reasoning reflected in our rulings. Public engagement, whether resulting in praise or criticism for our decisions, is commendable and should be encouraged. We do not, however, welcome divisive name-calling or inaccurate and uninformed accounts about our roles—we believe this serves only to distort the public’s understanding of the judiciary and shake their confidence in our democracy. And we should all emphatically speak out against normalizing personal attacks against judges—for all our sakes. Fortunately in California, we have many examples of how government should work, even in challenging times, and I would like to express my appreciation for your partnership and your support in these areas. I have spoken in the past regarding our three-branch solutions. I would like to touch upon a few examples. Remote Proceedings Since March 2022, over 6 million proceedings have been conducted with remote technology. In a one-year period from September 2024 to August 2025, that represented over 7,000 proceedings per day. Trends in positive experiences with these services have remained consistent over time, at about 95% satisfaction overall. The data unequivocally shows great public interest in having remote options, but existing statutory authority for remote proceedings is scheduled to expire at the end of this year (on January 1, 2027), or precisely I believe in 2027, but I’ll go with the end of the year for all of you. For the benefit of all Californians who see the advantages of technology and choose to appear remotely, I look forward to working with all of you to meet Californians’ needs and expectations in this area. CARE Act Proceedings As you know, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, which you passed in 2022 and which has been implemented in phases through December 2024, is now fully operational in all 58 counties. Between October 2023 and January 2026, there have been a total of 3,810 petitions filed. During that same time, courts ordered 925 CARE agreements and plans; and a further 1,835 individuals are still being actively engaged in these court proceedings. The Judicial Council publishes this CARE Act data on its California Courts website, providing a fuller description of the CARE process for anyone to see. These numbers, understandably, may not be satisfactory to those whose loved ones do not qualify for CARE Act assistance. With the recent expansion of the program to cover bipolar disorders with psychotic features—in addition to the original criteria of schizophrenia spectrum disorders—we do hope to reach more people in need and help redefine what justice looks like for Californians living with certain behavioral health challenges. While this is not a panacea, we can be proud of our partnership in this area. For each person who receives assistance—whether it is through a voluntary agreement or court-ordered plan or other referrals for services—their lives are greatly improved because of the CARE Act. In other words, the volume of petitions filed alone does not fully capture the overall effectiveness of the program. I would like to acknowledge the tireless work of our judges, court staff, and community partners who are managing the CARE Act petitions filed in our courts. As you know, they’re helping individuals with severe mental illness access housing, medication, and recovery services before they fall deeper into crisis. And these courts are not just legal forums, they are bridges to stability, safety, and hope for Californians who need it most. I thank our Governor, each of you in the Legislature, and each of our trial courts for your commitment to exploring ways to help these individuals. In addition to these two areas, I also look forward to partnering with you to address other ongoing, and in some instances, longstanding, issues of concern that are facing our courts. Judicial Positions First starting with our trial courts. We are grateful for the $70 million in ongoing funding that has been proposed in the Governor’s budget for the increasing costs of trial court operations. A longstanding problem our courts face, however, relates to the lack of funding for judgeships in counties with the greatest need. We are updating our judicial needs assessment—but the latest report from October 2022 reflects some stark realities I’d like to provide some context on: In recent years, the judicial branch has received funding for the 50 judgeships that were authorized as far back as 2007 (by AB 159 (Stats. 2007)): Two positions were funded in 2018 and allocated to Riverside County Superior Court; 25 positions were funded in 2019; and 23 positions were funded in 2022. Based on the October 2022 report, there was still a need even at that time for 98 additional judicial officers. While this funding has helped to minimize the gap between the number of authorized judgeships and judicial needs, there are still significant, ongoing challenges and needs that remain—with the need for more judges being especially acute in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.   What this means in practical terms is that justice is not served the way that it should be. As an example, in Riverside County Superior Court, during the period from January 9, 2023 to March 6, 2026, 437 misdemeanor cases and 57 felony cases were dismissed pursuant to Penal Code section 1050, subdivision (j), because of the condition of the court’s congested calendar. This is despite the Judicial Council making available temporary assigned judges when requested by the superior court, to help alleviate the burden on the court. Riverside, as an example again, has the highest use of our temporary assigned judges. Last fiscal year, the total expense associated with these assigned judges in Riverside County alone was about $3M. We will continue to make resources available to the courts through our Temporary Assigned Judges Program, and we look forward to working with all of you to find more permanent, predictable, and sustainable solutions to these challenges.   Artificial Intelligence I’d also like to touch upon AI. The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence continues to present both challenges and opportunities as we work to expand access to justice and improve efficiency across the judicial branch. In 2025, our Artificial Intelligence Task Force developed comprehensive guidance for courts on the responsible use of generative AI tools. The task force is now focusing on deep fakes and the impact of AI on the admissibility of evidence. I think you’ll agree with me that it’s a critical area to maintain integrity and public trust in judicial proceedings.   The Judicial Council approved a new rule of court on the use of generative AI for court-related work by judges and court staff. These guidelines emphasize accuracy, oversight, and transparency, while proactively mitigating risks related to privacy, bias, and security. They also underscore the importance of human judgment in all AI-assisted processes, ensuring that technology complements—rather than replaces—the expertise of our judicial officers.   The judicial branch is laying a strong foundation with its model policies, training programs, and pilot case studies that explore practical applications of AI.   We are committed to working collaboratively with all of you and our stakeholders to ensure that statutory requirements protect the public without unnecessarily restricting the appropriate and beneficial use of AI tools. Our goal is to strike the right balance between innovation and accountability, ensuring technology does not interfere with—but instead enhances—justice.   Impact of Federal Immigration Enforcement on Court Operations Last year, I also spoke about the considerable stress, anxiety, and confusion experienced by many Californians regarding federal immigration policies and enforcement as they intersect with our state courts. I also previously made clear that the federal government, of course, has the right and obligation to do its job but it should conduct its operations in a way that does not interfere with ours. Unfortunately, that has not happened. Public apprehension has continued to grow because of the way federal enforcement action has occurred—including the presence of federal officers in at least 17 of our state courthouses. These developments raise profound questions about access to justice, community trust, and the safety of individuals seeking legal remedies. The Judicial Council has taken proactive steps to address some of these challenges. Over the past year, we have provided extensive training for our courts on federal executive orders, the legal implications of immigration activity at courthouses, and relevant California statutes that are designed to uphold the principle of equal justice under the law. We have collected data informally so that we have a better understanding of the impact on court operations. Next month, the Judicial Council will consider a proposed California Rule of Court that would formalize our information gathering regarding civil arrests at state courthouses. This will help inform next steps as we consider options for protecting against encroachments on our ability to ensure that courts remain open and accessible to everyone. I would like again to reiterate that we can all perform our independent obligations consistent with our constitutional mandates in support of the rule of law, with our courts focusing on being available to everyone. We will continue to do everything within our power to ensure that all members of the public can freely access our state courts, to safeguard individual rights, and to promote the fair and timely administration of justice. State Bar Update I also want to report back on issues I raised last year with respect to the State Bar and the disastrous experience we had with the February 2025 bar exam. I can still say that in a calm and measured way. As you know, the California Supreme Court and the Legislature share an important partnership concerning oversight of the State Bar, with the court managing licensing and disciplinary functions and the Legislature setting the attorney licensing fee and auditing the bar’s governance and finances. For our part, the court has taken several corrective actions on the bar exam: Approved scoring adjustments to the February 2025 exam and an expansion of the Provisional License Program; Ordered the return to in-person testing using the Multistate Bar Exam provided by the National Conference of Bar Examiners; and Amended rules governing the exam and attorney admissions in order to strengthen and clarify the authority of the Committee of Bar Examiners and its role over attorney admissions. The amended rules address question review, validation, and proctoring; subpoena authority; oversight of the Office of Admissions’ budget; fee setting; and mandated cost-benefit analysis before there’s any proposed changes to the exam. It is too soon to report back on the future of the California Bar, but it is safe to say that nobody wants a repeat of what happened last year, and we will keep this experience in mind in determining what additional steps to take when presented with the State Bar’s recommendations in the near future.   Through our collaborative and complementary governance responsibilities, together we will continue to ensure that the public is protected and qualified new attorneys are admitted to the practice of law in our state.   Legislative Visits   I know that the challenges I have highlighted are not coming as a surprise to many of you, or at least I hope they’re not. I believe the courts have been transparent in explaining the difficulties we face and the needs we have in order to properly serve the public.   In addition, we have also invited you to come see the good work our courts do even under often difficult circumstances. Thank you for accepting our invitations to visit our various courts across the state. I know Senator Umberg thanks you too. I see him waving in the back. You guys must agree.   We continue to work with our local trial courts to coordinate legislative visits so that members can experience first-hand our day-to-day court operations—the challenges, innovations, and efficiencies—as well as the opportunity to meet with the committed public servants who provide court services to the constituents in your districts.   Since I last addressed you, we have been pleased to facilitate the visits of at least 15 senators and 22 assemblymembers, who have visited 15 local trial courts; some of you have visited more than once, some to more than one jurisdiction in your district, and some of you have worked directly with your local courts to schedule these visits.   We hope that, through these visits, you can see what I know to be true—we have a strong foundation for overcoming the real challenges we face.   We have over 2,000 dedicated public servants who are committed to the fair and impartial administration of justice. These judges, I believe, are significantly underpaid. The last judicial salary adjustment, separate from any adjustments provided under Government Code section 68203, was 19 years ago in 2007, when judges received an 8.5% increase. Judicial salaries are significantly lower than those of certain California state and local government attorneys, with growing pay differentials worsening over many years. I recognize we face a difficult financial budget this year, but I believe it’s necessary to flag this now because this level of inequity jeopardizes the judicial branch’s ability to attract and retain the best-qualified candidates for the bench. I look forward to discussing this further with you in the near future.   Californians rely on and deserve a judiciary that delivers the highest quality of justice and service. We do this through, not only our daily work in the courtroom, but through our commitment to upholding our ethical duties to maintain independence, integrity, and impartiality; our robust educational requirements; and through outreach efforts like our court’s annual special oral argument sessions at various locations throughout the state, my Power of Democracy Civic Learning Initiative, and countless other training, mentoring, and outreach programs held on a regular basis by courts at every level throughout the state.   This year, in addition to commemorating the 250th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence, we also mark an important milestone for the Judicial Council of California—the 100th year since it was founded through a vote of the people in 1926.   Through the council’s work, we have achieved greater consistency across courts, built a statewide administrative infrastructure, and consistently sought better funding for needed systemic improvements.   I am grateful for the vision, dedication, and hard work of the judicial branch leaders and Judicial Council members who have preceded me to build a strong and accountable judiciary that works collaboratively with our sister branches.   Because of this foundation—stemming from the structures we have in place, and more importantly, the people who are committed to this work—the state of the judiciary is strong, resilient, and committed to the rule of law and equal access to justice for all Californians.   Sister Branches And although my focus, of course, is on the judiciary—I also want to acknowledge two points regarding our sister branches of government.   First, I was so honored to swear in the Senate’s new President pro Tempore Monique Limón earlier this year. In the interest of time, I will not repeat all the “firsts” that her selection represents. But we’re so proud of her. It also has been a true privilege to work with Speaker Robert Rivas since his swearing in in June 2023. I also note this means Latinos are the leaders of two of the three branches of government—the judiciary and both houses in the Legislature—for the first time in California’s history.   Second—Governor Newsom. As he concludes his second term as Governor of our great state at the end of this year, I want to thank him for his thoughtful collaboration with the Legislature and the Judiciary, and for his dedicated service to the state.   I want to acknowledge the Governor for his collaboration on our three-branch solutions to improve access to justice in California, his willingness to listen to the needs and concerns of the judiciary, and his efforts to provide stable ongoing funding for the judicial branch.   Through his outreach efforts to encourage more diverse candidates from a variety of legal backgrounds, our Governor has also diversified California’s judiciary in a meaningful way. Of his 695 judicial appointments—with one more coming soon—more than half have been women, and more than half have been people of color. We thank the Governor for strengthening California’s judiciary.   And we’ll have more time with him—so I look forward to our continued collaboration. And I also look forward to the judiciary’s continued, strong partnership with the Legislature in our shared endeavor to serve the people of our state.   In closing, I would like to again reinforce the importance of our nation’s 250th celebration of our independence. The judiciary remains committed to the same guiding principles which are embodied in that document—equality, unalienable rights, justice, and the rule of law.   With your help, we have made great strides in upholding these principles. And the judiciary remains committed to navigating through the obstacles I have highlighted and safeguarding these principles for all future generations. Thank you for the opportunity to address you."   https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/courts-using-ai-and-cybersecurity-advances-improve-access-justice Courts Using AI and Cybersecurity Advances to Improve Access to JusticeMartin.Novitski Fri, 03/20/2026 - 12:40 Feature SAN FRANCISCO—A recent statewide technology summit convened hundreds of court professionals from around the state to talk about cybersecurity and how using artificial intelligence (AI) data can improve efficiency and benefit court users. The March 11 summit in San Francisco was the fifth of its kind hosted by the Judicial Council to bring courts together to share information and best practices on new technologies. How Advances in Artificial Intelligence Can Benefit Court Users Leaders from courts in San Diego, Orange, and Monterey counties led breakout sessions with topics ranging from understanding how AI can assist with translation and document workflows to discussions about maintaining guardrails to protect user data. In one breakout room, Judge Michael S. Groch from the San Diego Superior Court and Court Information Officer Brett Howard of the Orange Superior Court educated judicial officers and court executives on the use of AI. That session included an overview of Thomson Reuters CoCounsel, which can be used to improve judicial workflow, as well as demonstrated examples of what types of court work are safe to use with current generative AI technology. In her remarks to summit participants, California Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero acknowledged that AI can benefit court users. “Whatever new needs and opportunities will arise, I’m confident we will remain committed to innovation, to collaboration, and to aligning technology with our judicial branch goals,” she said, emphasizing the importance of collaboration throughout the constantly evolving landscape of technology. “And with all of you together, we will continue to shape the future for the courts, ensuring that technology serves as a bridge to justice.” Midnote speaker, Kevin Roose, Technology Columnist for The New York Times, invited attendees to look ahead as he highlighted the rapid acceleration of AI, noting that emerging tools are making “everyone a programmer.” He also considered what comes next after Artificial Generative Intelligence (AGI), including AI constitutions, defining intent for AI agents, and navigating a future with vast numbers of highly capable machine intelligences. Cybersecurity and the Courts A second set of breakout sessions focused on the growing need for cybersecurity enhancements in court operations. Speakers from Orange, Mono, and Riverside counties, as well as the Fifth Appellate District, emphasized preemptive measures and preparation as key factors in bolstering cybersecurity to protect court users. For example, Mono Superior Court Executive Officer Lester Perpall and Riverside Superior Court Deputy Chief of Information Technology Tim Cool spoke to fellow court staff about the importance of diligence and follow-through to improving cybersecurity in the courts. “Failures don’t happen because we don’t care,” Perpall warned. “Most failures happen because we confuse appearance with execution.” In addition, Adam Dodge, attorney and founder of EndTAB (End Technology-Enabled Abuse), served as the keynote speaker of the event. He warned that new technology is actively being used internationally to defraud others in real time. “We’re putting really powerful tools in the hands of people who could never access this level of sophistication before,” he stated as he demonstrated how AI deepfakes can be used to create increasingly realistic scams using technology that is evolving every day. Retired California Supreme Court Justice Recognizes Technology Pioneers Former California Supreme Court Justice Ming Chin presented the 2026 Justice Chin Technology Innovation Award to the Los Angeles Superior Court for its CourtHelp program, an AI-powered chatbot that helps web users navigate their court’s website. The award recognizes programs and projects that have increased access to justice through new technology. This is the second award of its kind, with the first one given to Alameda Superior Court at the 2023 Technology Summit. “It gives me great relief to find all of you still interested and progressing in the area of IT,” Justice Chin remarked as he closed the ceremony. “I encourage you to continue to do that, take it back to your courts, get more people involved and interested in IT.” Los Angeles Superior Court was honored with the Justice Ming Chin Technology Innovation Award for their CourtHelp program, a virtual assistant designed to help court users navigate the court’s website. (left to right) Matt Frederick, Technology Creative Director; Christopher Choi, Deputy Court Information Officer; Romulo Reyes, Deputy Court Information Officer; Raz Salehynia, Software Engineer Manager; Honorable Sergio C. Tapia II, Presiding Judge; Justice Ming W. Chin, Supreme Court Justice (ret.); David Slayton, Court Executive Officer/Clerk of Court; Mike Baliel, Court Information Officer; Jordan Aiken, Senior IT Manager- Infrastructure; and Luis Olachea, Deputy Court Information Officer. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/court-appeal-third-appellate-district-hear-oral-argument-sutter-county-superior-courthouse Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District to Hear Oral Argument at Sutter County Superior Courthousenatalie.l.ston… Thu, 03/12/2026 - 10:42 News Release Yuba City – Administrative Presiding Justice Laurie M. Earl announced the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, will hear oral argument at Sutter County Superior Courthouse on March 25 beginning at 10 a.m. More than 100 students from surrounding schools are expected to attend, and interested members of the public, attorneys, and judges are also welcome. Doors will open at 9 a.m. Since 2000, the Third Appellate District has held oral argument sessions in 31 high schools and two law schools in 20 counties. The Third Appellate District has received statewide recognition for its outreach program, which helps students and members of the public understand how appellate courts work. As part of the outreach program, justices of the Third Appellate District will discuss their career paths and hold a question-and-answer session after oral argument. The justices are not permitted to answer questions about the case.  Attendees are required to go through a security screening, so it’s recommended to arrive early. The following two cases will be heard:   Calendar 10 – 10:30 a.m.: Women’s Health Specialists v. C.H., case number C102979.  Appeal from a workplace violence restraining order, preventing appellant, a frequent protestor at a women’s health clinic, from harassing an employee or from coming within 100 yards of the employee, their car, their workplace – the clinic – for three years. 10:35 a.m. – 11:05 a.m.: People v. Vasquez, case number C102449.  Appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence to six years plus life without the possibility of parole after the jury found defendant guilty of willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder and custodial possession of a weapon and also found true the special circumstance allegation that defendant intentionally lay in wait. 11:10 a.m. – 11:40 a.m.: Question-and-answer session with the justices. If you are a reporter and would like to photograph or record the session, please submit a Media Request Form and an Order on Media Request to Colette Bruggman at 3DCefiling@jud.ca.gov. The Third Appellate District usually holds oral argument in its courtroom at 914 Capitol Mall, Sacramento. The Third Appellate District is made up of 23 counties: Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Lassen, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Yolo and Yuba.  https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-judicial-center-library-exhibition-honors-impactful-women-states-legal-history California Judicial Center Library Exhibition Honors Impactful Women in State’s Legal HistoryKaren.Datangel Mon, 03/02/2026 - 15:43 Feature The California Judicial Center Library’s latest exhibition is a celebration of California women in law, including trailblazing judicial officers at all court levels. Resolute and Resilient: Celebrating 175 Years of California Women and the Law features illustrated panels and primary source materials such as photographs and artifacts celebrating California women’s contributions to the law and honoring the state’s pioneering women attorneys, judges, and justices.     The timeline of the exhibition begins in 1848 as Mexico ceded 55% of its territory to the United States. The Gold Rush in California began earlier that year and disproportionately affected Native American and Mexican women. Some of these women were the first to impact state law as litigants and activists, such as Mexican American novelist María Ruiz de Burton, who fought to defend her land holdings in Baja California and San Diego County in Mexican and U.S. courts for more than two decades. In the 1850s and 1860s, women like Mary Ellen Pleasant became known for their abolitionism and started an early civil rights movement. The exhibition then focuses on the women’s suffrage movement in California, led by Clara Shortridge Foltz and Laura de Force Gordon, who also became the state’s first women lawyers. Georgia Bullock and Annette Abbott Adams became the first women judges in the state. Many other “firsts” amongst women attorneys are also featured in the exhibition, such as Abby Abinanti, who was the first Native American woman to practice law in California and currently serves as Chief Judge of the Yurok Tribal Court.     Women of the state judiciary in the 1960s and 1970s broke both gender and race barriers, including Presiding Justice Vaino Spencer as the first African-American woman judge; Judge Frances Muñoz as the first Latina judge; and Chief Justice Rose Bird as the first woman to serve full-time on the California Supreme Court. Since Chief Justice Bird’s historic tenure, eight other women have served on the state’s highest court, including four that serve today: Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, Justice Carol Corrigan, Justice Leondra Kruger, and Justice Kelli Evans. The exhibition is on display now till the end of March 2026 in the Archives Room on the first floor of the Ronald M. George State Office Complex in San Francisco. An accompanying digital exhibition booklet is also available. This article was originally published on March 14, 2025 and has been updated. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/2026-judicial-demographics-report-california-bench-continues-grow-more-diverse 2026 Judicial Demographics Report: California Bench Continues to Grow More DiverseCorren, Blaine Mon, 03/02/2026 - 10:32 News Release Since December 2006: Number of female justices and judges is up 17.8 percentage points Percentage of Asian, Black, and Hispanic justices and judges has increased more than 140 percent For the 20th straight year, California’s judicial bench has grown more diverse, according to the Judicial Officer (JO) Demographic Data report released by the Judicial Council. The data reflect demographic information self-reported by justices and judges on the bench as of December 31, 2025, with a response rate of 93%. Responding to the questionnaire is voluntary, and the data only reflects the responses provided. Per data collected in December 2025 (and published in March 2026), responding female justices and judges constitute 44.9% of the judiciary across all court levels, a 1.6 percentage point increase over the prior year and an increase of 17.8 percentage points since December 2006—the first time that data were collected for this purpose. The bench also has continued to become more racially and ethnically diverse. The percentage of responding Asian, Black, and Hispanic justices and judges has increased by more than 140 percent since 2006. Statewide, Multi-Branch Effort to Increase Judicial Diversity The Judicial Council’s Strategic Plan for California’s Judicial Branch makes explicit the branch’s commitment to a diverse and inclusive court system. The plan supports efforts like the council’s Pathways to Judicial Diversity toolkit, which encourages courts to reach out to underrepresented groups—including individuals with diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, disabilities, and sexual orientations—to educate and advise them about pursuing careers in the law. In addition, the Judicial Mentor Program is a statewide undertaking between the Governor’s office and the California courts to develop and recruit qualified and diverse judicial applicants—and the state’s appellate and superior courts also have their own local mentor programs. Progress on increasing judicial diversity has continued under our current Governor’s appointments. Since taking office in 2019 through 2025, more than half of Governor Gavin Newsom's 695 judicial appointments have been women justices and judges, and more than half also identified as Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic, or Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. Survey of California Bench The Judicial Council surveyed California judges and justices in December 2025 to get a snapshot of the demographics of the California bench—including gender, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Among the findings: Gender Of the responding judicial officers, data show the percentage of female justices and judges has increased to 44.9%, compared to 27.1% in 2006, continuing a steady upward trend. Race and Ethnicity The data also show changes over the past 20 years in the percentage of responding justices and judges reported in the following race/ethnicity categories: American Indian or Alaska Native (0.3% in 2025 compared to 0.1% in 2006) Asian (11.9% in 2025 compared to 4.4% in 2006) Black or African American (9.9% in 2025 compared to 4.4% in 2006) Hispanic or Latino (13.1% in 2025 compared to 6.3% in 2006) Pacific Islander (0.2% in 2025 compared to 0.1% in 2006) White (55.8% in 2025 compared to 70.1% in 2006) Some Other Race (1.4% in 2025 compared to 0.2% in 2006) More Than One Race (5.8% in 2025 compared to 4.4% in 2006) Information Not Provided (1.5% in 2024 compared to 9.9% in 2006) These changes reflect judicial retirements and other departures from the bench, new judicial appointments, and an increase in the number of trial court judges who voluntarily provided race/ethnicity information. Gender Identity/Sexual Orientation This is the 15th year that the study includes data on gender identity and sexual orientation, as required by a law passed in 2011. Survey respondents reported the following: Heterosexual – 80.9% Lesbian – 2.1% Gay – 3.0% Bisexual - 0.7% Transgender - 0.12% Nonbinary – 0.06% More than One Gender ID/Sexual Orientation – 0.3% Information not provided – 12.9% Veteran and Disability Status In addition, this is the 12th year that the study includes data on veteran and disability status. These questions were first asked of justices and judges who were new to the bench during the 2014 calendar year, although judges appointed before this date are free to update this aspect of their demographic profile as well. Of the 1170 active justices and judges responding to the question about their status as a veteran, 70 respondents (5.9%) indicated they have served in the military. Of the 1177 active justices and judges responding to the question concerning their disability status, 40 justices and judges (3.3%) indicated they have a disability. About Judicial Officer Demographic Data Government Code section 12011.5(n) requires the Judicial Council to collect and release aggregate demographic data on California state justices and judges by March 1 every year. This is the report’s 20th year. Increasing the diversity of California’s justices and judges to reflect California’s populace continues to be a goal of the Judicial Council. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/2026-civic-learning-awards-spotlight-excellence-civic-education 2026 Civic Learning Awards to Spotlight Excellence in Civic EducationMartin.Novitski Fri, 02/27/2026 - 12:07 News Release For the 14th consecutive year, state public schools are invited to apply for a California Civic Learning Award. Co-sponsored by Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, the awards honor campus-wide integration of civic learning and engagement. A growing number of California's 58 counties are home to schools recognized since the program's inception in 2013. Last year, a total of 34 schools in eight counties received recognition. Schools earning the highest honor received their award in person from Chief Justice Guerrero. “Civics is ingrained campus-wide in the schools we honor,” said Chief Justice Guerrero. “This year, we will focus on the specific programs that make these schools successful in delivering quality civics education to students. We want to identify and replicate these programs as models to benefit schools throughout California.” What’s New in 2026: Schools may submit up to three programs, including clubs or events. A scoring rubric with weight criteria will guide applicants. Programs receiving the highest scores will earn recognition for their school. Honorees will be announced via a livestream during the Chief Justice’s Law Day event on May 1. An orientation for applicants will be held on March 4 at 4 p.m. The one-hour webinar is not mandatory and will be recorded. The awards are presented in partnership with the California Department of Education and supported by the California Lawyers Foundation. Apply now using the official Civic Learning Award application form and find more information about the award at https://powerofdemocracy.org. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/memoriam-justice-daniel-j-kremer In Memoriam: Justice Daniel J. KremerMartin.Novitski Fri, 02/20/2026 - 14:18 News Release Retired Administrative Presiding Justice of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Daniel Kremer passed on February 17, 2026.  Presiding Justice Kremer is a 1960 graduate of Stanford University with a degree in political science and a 1963 graduate of Stanford Law School. He was admitted to the California bar and to practice before the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in January 1964. He became a member of the bar of the United States Supreme Court in 1969. From 1964 to 1972 he was a deputy attorney general in the Sacramento office of the California Attorney General where he represented the State of California in criminal trials and appeals including death penalty cases before the California Supreme Court. In 1972 he was named head of the Attorney General’s San Diego office criminal division and in 1983 became Chief Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Attorney General’s criminal division statewide. In 1983 Governor Deukmejian appointed him to the San Diego County Superior Court. There he served in the court’s civil, criminal, law and motion and juvenile departments. In July 1985, Governor Deukmejian elevated him to the Court of Appeal as presiding justice. The voters of the State of California elected him to a full term in 1986 and reelected him to a second full term in 1998.  Presiding Justice Kremer retired in 2003 and was succeeded by Presiding Justice Judith McConnell.  Following his retirement, Presiding Justice participated in the Legacy Project, the video of which can be viewed here. Presiding Justice Kremer chaired the Judicial Council’s Committee on Criminal Trial Delay Reduction and the Council’s Library Technology Committee. He was later named a member of the California Judicial Council, the policy making body for California’s courts. While a Council member, he chaired the Judicial Council’s Rules and Forms Committee and was co-chair of California’s first Court Technology Committee. Justice Kremer chaired the Task Force on Court Facilities, a body created by the Legislature and charged with evaluating every courthouse in California and recommending steps necessary to bring deficient sites up to acceptable standards. In 2002, Justice Kremer received the Judicial Council's Jurist of the Year award.  Presiding Justice Kremer is preceded by his wife Kathryn of 56 years and survived by his sons Aaron and Brendan. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/council-approves-funding-technology-projects-improve-services-public Council Approves Funding for Technology Projects to Improve Services for the PublicCorren, Blaine Fri, 02/20/2026 - 10:58 News Release SAN FRANCISCO—The Judicial Council at its Feb. 20 meeting approved funding for the Superior Court of Los Angeles County to continue hosting a shared solution that sends automated text message notifications—such as hearing reminders—to court users in nine participating courts. This technology funding is part of a state modernization grant program managed by the council that helps courts improve services to the public. “We know that every single court in our state needs additional technology funding—the applications far exceed the available funding,” said Judge Maria Hernandez, chair of the council’s Technology Committee. “We want you to understand the critical need in creating these opportunities and how our courts are able to expand access to justice through these technology initiatives.” The council also heard about how other California courts use the funding to improve operations and expand access: Digitizing Documents: Reduces printing and storage costs, improves data security, and enhances efficiency through e-filing, faster case processing, and streamlined public access requests   Audio/Video Upgrades: Enhances remote participation in court proceedings through audio and video upgrades, and provides technologies for website chatbots and virtual assistants that allow staff to assist the public via live video and secure document sharing   Cyber/Information Security: Protects case files, evidence, and confidential information, as well as preventing disruptions to court operations and proceedings Watch archived webcast of this portion of the meeting Other Items on Council Meeting Agenda: Report Shows Strong Support for Remote Court Proceedings: The council received a report showing that litigants and court staff who took part in remote appearances in civil and criminal proceedings had an overwhelmingly positive experience. Based on user responses between September 1, 2024, and August 31, 2025, approximately 90% of court users and 98% of court staff reported a positive experience. The council also heard firsthand from San Diego County Judge Lisa Rodriguez, Dependency Legal Services Policy Director/Lead Attorney Julia Hanagan, and other council members on their experiences with remote proceedings and the benefits this option provides court users and staff. Watch archived webcast of this portion of the meeting Presentation From the Department of Finance: The council received an update from the California Department of Finance (DOF) on the state's current fiscal situation and how the judicial branch budget is developed. The DOF discussed how personal income taxes, capital gains, and changes to federal funding causes volatility in the state’s revenues. Due to these variables, the DOF puts a priority on long-term fiscal resilience and adequate reserves. Despite improving economic signals and revenues, the DOF predicts a modest budget shortfall for the next budget cycle due to previous deficits and ongoing debt obligations. Watch archived webcast of this portion of the meeting Education for Judges and Court Staff: The council approved its next two-year education plan for developing and delivering education to justices, judges, and court staff to help them maintain high standards of professionalism, ethics, and performance for the benefit of the public. The plan includes on-demand videos, online courses, webinars, podcasts, and publications, as well as live interactive programs and courses offered both in person and remotely. Presenters included information and examples of resources in the areas of environmental law, domestic violence, and new judge education. Watch archived webcast of this portion of the meeting Judicial Council Member to Retire: With more 30 years of trial court experience, Darrel Parker, court executive officer for the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County, will retire effective Feb. 27. Parker served as an advisory member of the council as chair of its Court Executives Advisory Committee. He has also served on many other council advisory bodies and curriculum committees during his judicial branch career. Judicial Council of California 100th Anniversary Video: The conclusion of the business meeting featured a preview of a video produced to highlight the council’s creation in 1926 and its role in improving the statewide administration of justice. Once finalized, the council will post the video to its 100th anniversary website, which also features bios of previous Chief Justices and council administrative directors, as well as a timeline of actions taken or supported by the council that helped transform the court user-experience in California over the last 100 years. Watch archived webcast of this portion of the meeting The complete meeting agenda and council reports are posted to the California Courts Meeting Information Center—an archived webcast of today’s meeting will be posted to the center as soon as it is available.